Lionel, you are failing to read the sentence before those you are emphasizing:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."Lionel:Baptism is necessary for every one.All need faith and baptism says Vatican Council II (AG 7).The Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water says the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.If there is an exception, it would be known only to God.So why mention something which is unknown to us? This was the error in 1949.

_______________

Therefore, for any who have NOT had 'the possibility of asking for this sacrament' its effects may be attained through desire.Lionel:We do not and cannot know of any such case.So why was it mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Why was it inferred to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma?The fault was with Cardinal Francesco Marchetti.He was implying that these cases were examples of known salvation outside the Church and so Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.In other words he personally knew of persons saved as such and so they were contradictions to the dogma.Why mention something which is hypothetical and then also suggest that this case was saved without the baptism of water? How would Cardinal Marchetti know ?___________________

Otherwise, you would deny Beatitude to many saints and prophets of the Old Testament, to mention of a few.Lionel:The prophets and saints of the Old Testament who were saved, went to Heaven only after the Resurrection of the awaited Jewish Messiah. Until that time they had to wait in Abraham's Bosom.__________________________

Anonymous:Thus, there is no contradiction in what was asserted by Cardinal Burke and Fr. Hardon and others.Lionel:

Like Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, Fr.John Hardon assumed that being saved with implicit desire ( and without the baptism of water) or in invincible ignorance, were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.This is accepted by Cardinal Raymond Burke.

We now know that those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, allegedly without the baptism of water, are in Heaven. So how can they be explicit exceptions on earth to the strict interpretation of the dogma, it is asked.This was a factual mistake made by Cardinal Burke and the late Fr.John Hardon.Fr.John Hardon also assumed that the Church Fathers and Church documents before 1949 tell us that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. There is no such magisterial document before 1949. They only refer to persons being saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. They do not tell us that these cases are known to us.Nor is it said that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This has to be inferred- wrongly. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.

Fr.John Hardon also assumed that the Church Fathers and Church documents before 1949 tell us that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. There is no such magisterial document before 1949. They only refer to persons being saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. They do not tell us that these cases are known to us.Nor is it said that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This has to be inferred- wrongly. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. -Lionel Andrades

wineinthewaterIf the Church ever actually held the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then she threw it away long before 1949. Pope Pius XI rejected the rigorist interpretation in his encyclical Quuanto Conficiamur Moerore.Lionel:Please cite the text.I don't think it says any where that there are known exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma._______________________

Trent rejected it. Lionel:The same with Trent.

The Council of Trent mentions the posibility of a person being saved with implicit desire in a way known to God.The Council of Trent does not state that these cases are physically or personally known to us to be exceptions to the dogma.This has to be wrongly inferred. The text does not make this claim._____________________ Thomas Aquinas rejected it with his embrace of baptism of repentance and baptism of desire.Lionel:St.Thomas Aquinas like St.Augustine held the strict interpretation of the dogma.He mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance. He also says that God will send a preacher to him. So he will be baptised before he dies.It has to be inferred wrongly that the man in the forest refers to a known case and so it is an exception to the dogma.The text does not state this.Liberal theologians make the irrational inference.__________________

This is obviously quite the issue for you. But as for me, I will put my faith in the Church.

Lionel:So will I.The Church according to magisterial texts including Vatican Council II. None of them are interpreted by me, with the irrational proposition that persons saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. This would be implying that we can personally see or know these persons on March 31, 2015 for them to be exceptions._______________________ If she has erred on this, then she is not the Church founded by Jesus and cannot be trusted about anything.Lionel:I see it as an oversight of the magisterium after 1949. It can be corrected and we are back to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.______________________ You can toss her non-rigorist view of EENS if you like, but you must likewise be willing to give up her authority behind every teaching. Lionel:It is the non rigorist vew of EENS which clashes with her Authority, the Bible and Tradition.________________________

In an irony, by claiming that she is wrong now, you invalidate any claim to your rigorist position that is based on her authority.Lionel:With the rigorist interpretation of EENS the teaching of the Church is the same before and after Vatican Council II.It is the non rigorist interpretation, the popular one, which is heresy. It rejects a defined dogma and changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed's 'I beleive in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.There is only one known baptism, the baptism of water. We cannot administer the baptism of desire or blood to anyone. These are graces from God.So it is wrong to imply that there is salvation outside the Church, without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. None of us knows of an exception in the present times. -Lionel Andrades

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS: Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas does not know of any exceptions.

The Catholic Church affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma is also in line with Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.All. There are no exceptions.This is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.

Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI would today confirm that those who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, referred to in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) as possibilities, are not physically visible and personally known to us .Obviously. So today March 31,2015 there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils.Nor are there exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. None.He cannot meet someone in Rome who will be saved without 'faith and baptism'.

The Catholic Church's ecclesiology is still exclusivist.Since there cannot be exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The references to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc ( all examples of persons saved but invisible on earth) are possibilities but not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version.

Bishop Mark Pivarunas, Superior General of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI- Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae )would say the obvious i.e salvation in Heaven is not visible, known, explicit in the present times. This is common knowledge.This could be known even to someone who did not know Catholic theology. One does not have to be a Catholic to know that persons in Heaven are not visible on earth. Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.He assumed there were physically visible exceptions.

The Catholic Church still teaches the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,for the discerning Catholic.Vatican Council II affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma- unless you assume some people in Heaven can be seen objectively on earth.

Bishop Mark Pivarunas' view would also be supported by Mons. Guido Pozzo, Secretary at Ecclesia Dei, Vatican.So there would no be doctrinal differences with the sedevacantists CMRI, since Vatican Council II ( without the irrationality) is pro-CMRI,SSPX and Tradition in general and especially on the issue of other religions and ecumenism.

Mons. Guido Pozzo cannot know of any exception to the dogma. Vatican Council II does not mention any case of someone saved without 'faith and baptism' in the present times. If it did suggest that there was an exception then it would be an objective mistake. The references to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire (LG 14,AG 7) in Vatican Council II are not exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. They have been mentioned in LG 14,AG 7 because of the oversight in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on members of other religions needing to convert formally into the Catholic Church for salvation and that there can only be an ecumenism of return.

There are also no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need to convert into the Church with 'faith and baptism'.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been the traditional basis for affirming the Catholic teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political systems.All need to be Catholic since in Heaven there are only Catholics.

So Bishop Mark Pivarunas differences on other religions and ecumenism do not really exist.

Doctrinally Bishop Mark Pivarunas, the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate can hold their traditional position on other religions and an ecumenism of return and also accept Vatican Council II (without the irrational premise). They can have it both ways. The irrational premise suggests that we humans can physically see persons saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance. Then it is inferred that these cases in Heaven, physically seen on earth, are explicit exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. This was also the misunderstanding of Bishop Mark Pivarunas.

His irrational inference was that since there are physically known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water on March 31, 2015, there is salvation outside the Church.So the irrational conclusion has been that Vatican Council II contradicts the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So the CMRi rejects Vatican Council II.

Bishop Mark Pivaraunas cannot physically know any exceptions to the centuries-old interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.This can be confirmed, by journalists, who contact the CMRI.They would be confirming what is commlon knowledge.-Lionel Andrades

Brief History

In 1986, CMRI held its first General Chapter establishing a formal set of Rules and Constitutions. In the same year, the Rule was approved by Bishop Robert F. McKenna, OP, whose episcopal lineage can also be traced to Archbishop Thục.

The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen serves 29 churches and chapels in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They also operate the Mater Dei Seminary in Omaha, Nebraska, while the Sisters' motherhouse is located in Spokane, Washington (Mount Saint Michaels Mission). They have expanded into Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; Central and South America, with centers in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico; and Europe, with Mass centers in England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Russia, and Ukraine.